Barnack

Depend if it is because the sales paid for 75% of the total production + domestic release cost, or if it is because of co-financier, it is probably a mix of 2, if so it depend on the nature of that co-financing deal if profit are almost a certainty.

You are probably in a tiny minority, a feature length movie that is all catastrophe seem a bit too repetitive. I guess Gravity would be not to far to that and it need that level of quality/ingeniousity in the catastrophe to work and still a little bit of something else.

Yeah I imagine ratio is a bit useless once you consider releasing cost, 450k or 4.5 million is not that important. Just saying that a 450k that spawn a giant printing money franchise is certainly up there in term of horror box office story of the 2000's. Same for SAW, specially that Saw was not distributed by a studio (and in 2004 Liongates was really not big and had to be really creative in marketing)

Yes, but it will not turn into a franchise and costed much more, it is certainly up there, but I'm not sure it is clearly the horror phenomenon of the 2000's or the story, the first Saw movie had a bit more story behind it, first major release to use porn magazine and website for marketing for example.

I don't know for story of the century, the genre has a lot of competition in incredible run, for example the 450K paranormal activity: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=paranormalactivity.htm And theat franchise in general, the Saw franchise did something quite extraordinary too

On the-numbers they say: Precise information on Blu-ray sales is not generally available. Our Blu-ray sales figures are estimates based on studio figures, publicly available data, and private research on retail sales carried out by Nash Information Services. The figures include estimated sales at Wal-Mart and other retailers that do not publicly release sales information. They do not know sales figures, that very high average sales number price would require a lot of special edition, 4K, sales, etc... but I would imagine they do the best they can. And do much better than simply prediction from box office and they are far from totally useless, the correlation between the-numbers sales figures and movies home video revenues from the Sony leaked movie was really good, much better than the correlation between box office and home video revenue . That said those sales figures are getting more and more useful, not just because they are for only one country and gross estimate, sales are not specially high in some genre vs rentals and now physical sales are becoming a even smaller % of HV because of itunes types sales.

Valerian is getting a really big one. There is a lot of non DC or marvel comic book adaptation I think, like Snowpiercer a couple of year's ago. Has for the YA adaptation, we will be getting Ready Player one and some others but I think most of the 15/20 adaptation project have been cancelled, the genre had a short window.

Because it also include 75% of the P&A and not budget, I imagine it mean Lionsgate have co-financier partner too, if it is purely pre-sales they are impressive sales.

I do think it is a good trailer so far from the release, nothing about the story (except that it is a team up of superheroes) but it sell that it will be an event movie with incredibly large scale and money on screen, story/villain, etc... stuff harder to remember anyway to be revealed closer to the release date. As for Superman not being shown, I would cheapen is return to show it in the material, even thought everyone know that he will be there and Cavil will be in the IMDB cast list for this one or the next one.

I would imagine that a move like that would hurt pre-sales prospect a lot and what the movie could be. If the movie if really liked (box office legs, home video sales, exit poll metric and marketing study interest on a sequel etc...) maybe, those first weekend number are not good enough or bad enough to make it clear one way or an other about a sequel.

There is 70mm film giant screen IMAX and 2K digital projector small screen IMAX. I'm not sure what the name IMAX on the second one mean exactly, is it just a brand name tag used on the door with nothing else or are those 2K digital projector special in some ways.

I don't know if Logan would have benefited, is marketing was a lot about being different, not yet a saving the world type of superheroes movie, more grounded and gritty, having a 3D release would have been against that grain. 3D is still a real thing, specially when it fit the movie well like Jungle Book, but 2016 was the year with the most 3D release, 30% more than 2015 and the 3D box office declined (while the 2D box office grew) in 2016.

Not sure what you mean by has this movie even made a profit, give it 6-18 month to have some chance to do so, it is still so new. Has for WB satisfied with Kong's numbers they must be versus some of the prediction made a month before it's release, versus their expectation when it was greenlight we will never know, but I would imagine that they are yes. I don't know how much WB get involved on the production side or if they act only as a distributor in those Legendary/Tencent Pictures movie, but either way it is performing as well as they probably thought a King Kong movie could in 2017.

This, saved by China would be a good use for a movie they were not sure or expected it to not get a China release and to not necessarily work there (imagine The Revenant would not have worked elsewhere, got a bit surprising late china release and did great business there, Suicide Squad or Ghostbuster) A co-chinesse production using Chinesse local movie star with a movie designed from scratch to work well in China is not saved by that market when it does well there more that it is saved by the US if it does well domestic at this point.

Would a live action Pokemon movie franchise possible ?

Well it did a monster 677 million on a rumored small budget of 165 million, if that kind of result didn't lead to 9 figure gross profit Hollywood would be in big difficulties. That budget can be a little underestimated and the participation bonus (I mean, Kevin Feige must be getting nice points by now, maybe even first dollar gross and Cumberbatch is a really big name) probably are, so chance are good that they are overestimating the profit a little bit but probably not by much more than that. But still it was such a giant success, if we use a movie that we know the actual revenue/expense with a similar budget/box office for a comparison like Hancock Hancock Budget: $166.05 Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $227,946,274 36.5% + Foreign: $396,440,472 63.5% = Worldwide: $624,386,746 Doctor Strange Budget: $165 (rumored) Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $232,641,920 34.3% + Foreign: $444,919,741 65.7% = Worldwide: $677,561,661 Hancock Total revenue 660.67 million Total cost: 457.142 million Gross margin: 203.528 Cost breakdown Production: 166.05 Overhead: 14.11 Residual: 26.65 World release P&A: 168.42 Home entertainment world release: 79.6 Tv release cost: 1.851 Others: 0.461 Most of it went to Will Smith and others with points (but I would imagine mostly Will Smith) with a really big 113.1 million in participation bonus, 10.4 million to the third party investor and 78.6 million to the studio. Doctor Strange not getting close to Hancock margin of profit despite a bigger box office and cheaper digital world theatrical release/Home video release show how smaller the margin are getting because of the decline in HE/TV revenues in that last 10 year's.

Their number are still very good (they are probably made by people that actually worked in distribution ?), saying that I only compare 2 deadline estimate with actual leaked studio accounting (22 jump street/ spider-man), stuff like home video and marketing expense they are really close, I imagine marketing is public so you can evaluate it, home video performance is heavily correlated to the genre and box office. What they get the more wrong is the movie budget obviously, those being often 100% secret and even more wrong is the participation deals that they tend to underestimate a lot, it is around 7% of a studio total expense and they often write very small number like 10-15 million even on a successful sequels staring big names. They also tend to call it studio net profit, while most of those movie have co-financier and the profit tend to be splitted a little bit.

One reason I would imagine that they do not do a ROI type of ranking. 1) Too many possible movie in the top 20, if you go by net profit you have probably 50 max suspect to run numbers on, on ROI every small movie with a good box office become a possible candidate to the top 20, and for smaller movie a larger portion of the revenue are unknown, it would be too much work I would assume. 2) If you start a cash return analysis, the amount of time between the spending of the money and the making of the money become also very important, making it harder 3) For a big studio, I'm not sure if I would say that cash return is 100% as important, ie, a giant movie with a 24% ROI and a 200 million net profit is probably still better than one small movie that made 27% and 22 million net profit (sure if it was a reproducible product/formula they would prefer the better ROI and just do more of them, but that not really how it work in the movie world), starting that balancing act would make it a bit hard.

For that movie result (depending if they get some form of bonus pass a certain point, I'm not certainly sure how it work, Deadline la la land revenue estimate has 2 different foreign line that make it look life if something like that was in play) yes, but it must change the ability and how much they can get for future release, specially for a movie with planned sequel that must make it relevant, the performance of the movie will influence a lot the sales of the next, enough to make a difference between greenlighting it or not.

Liongates from what I understand don't have the ability to distribute their movie worldwide, they always need to do some deal with other distributor, they do that for all their movie, La la land included. As for the co-finance, it could be that some of them have a type of deal that they can if they want have stake in the movie without liongates having any options (the co-financier seem to own the franchise in some ways), but yeah usually you get co-financier to protect you from flop, it is really common now, it is even rare to not do it outside Disney.

136 million domestic would be a rental of around 70-74 million, remove 50 million in P&A, there is 20-24 million left to start paying for the budget (is it possible that you made the common mistake of removing the studio P&A from the box office instead then removing it from the studio part of it ?) It depend how that 25% exposure come from, if it is because they achieved to do 75 million in pre-sales and that the budget of the movie was 100 million, it turn it in a 25 million movie that you release it only in the US and UK and you just have to make 25 million to cover it. If it is part pre-sales, part financing partner that make it a bit more complicated.

Probably a mix of sales of market and co-financing. I think they went higher risk and financed Hunger Games by themselve a lot, they even sold some of their library and story rights to raise the 80 million budget, they sold all foreign market except UK like they always do thought, apparently around 50 million. http://www.reuters.com/article/lionsgate-hungergames-idUSL1E8QL2G320120323 Not a lot of production companies involved: Production Companies Lionsgate Color Force Not like a God of Egypts: Production Companies Pyramania Summit Entertainment Mystery Clock Cinema TIK Films Thunder Road Pictures Or Power Rangers Production Companies Lionsgate Saban Brands Saban Entertainment Temple Hill Entertainment Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

I was going to say that this was just unbelievable high quality work, than I saw that it seem to be your full time profession, so that make it believable. Good job !

Not among the nerds/boys audience of Power Rangers thought no ? Must I felt as a good counter programming second weekend option at one point.

40M is mediocre for a Liongates release ? that would put it in their top 10 of all time. As for the views being huge, is that still true after adjusting for the very Youtube heavy target audience and known IP factor ? Regardless, I'm pretty sure there will still have a strong correlation between trailers views and the first weekend box office of this weekend, making that variable more than nothing and a tool better than random at predicting success.